4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Tanawan submitted himself to Dr. Lim, the company-designated physician, for a medical examination on December 1, 1997, which was within the 3-day reglementary period from his repatriation. The medical examination conducted focused on Tanawan’s foot injury, the cause of his repatriation. Nothing was mentioned of an eye injury. Dr. Lim treated Tanawan for the foot injury from December 1, 1997 until May 21, 1998, when Dr. Lim declared him fit to work. Within that period that lasted 172 days, Tanawan was unable to perform his job, an indication of a permanent disability. Under the law, there is permanent disability if a worker is unable to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.[35] That the company-designated physician did not render any finding of disability is of no consequence. Disability should be understood more on the loss of earning capacity rather than on the medical significance of the disability.[36] Even in the absence of an official finding by the company- designated physician to the effect that the seafarer suffers a disability and is unfit for sea duty, the seafarer may still be declared to be suffering from a permanent disability if he is unable to work for more than 120 days. [37] What clearly determines the seafarer’s entitlement to permanent disability benefits is his inability to work for more than 120 days.[38] Although the company- designated physician already declared the seafarer fit to work, the seafarer’s disability is still considered permanent and total if such declaration is made belatedly (that is, more than 120 days after repatriation).[39] After the lapse of the 120-day period from his repatriation, Tanawan consulted Dr. Saguin, his own private physician, for the purpose of having an evaluation of the degree of his disability. At that time, he was due to undergo bone grafting and pinning of the 5th metatarsal bone, as Dr. Lim recommended. Dr. Saguin’s finding that Tanawan had a Grade 12 disability was, therefore, explicable and plausible. On the other hand, Tanawan’s claim for disability benefits due to the eye injury was already barred by his failure to report the injury and to have his eye examined by a company-designated physician.[40] The rationale for the rule is that reporting the illness or injury within three days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to determine the cause of the illness or injury. Ascertaining the real cause of the illness or injury beyond the period may prove difficult.[41] To ignore the rule might set a precedent with negative repercussions, like opening the floodgates to a limitless number of seafarers claiming disability benefits, or causing unfairness to the employer who would have difficulty determining the cause of a claimant’s illness because of the passage of time. The employer would then have no protection against unrelated disability claims.[42] Tanawan did not report the eye injury either to the petitioner or to Dr. Lim while he was undergoing treatment for the foot injury. Curiously, he did not even offer any explanation as to why he had his eye examined only on August 25, 1998, or after almost nine months from his repatriation. Under the 1996 POEA SEC,[43] it was enough to show that the injury or illness was elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55096 7/11